Category Archives: civil liberties

President Obama, WTF?

I’m still happy that I can say “President Obama.”

But some things make you say WTF?:

The Obama administration is fighting to block access to names of visitors to the White House, taking up the Bush administration argument that a president doesn’t have to reveal who comes calling to influence policy decisions.

President Obama, this is an easy one. You’re supposed to be all about accountability and transparency. You’re not a dork obsessed with secrecy like President Cheney was.

Give us your White House visitor log.


Biblical Marriage

Betty Bowers, America’s best Christian explains:

Is it clear now?

Wingnut Quote of the Day


Deferring to people’s own pronunciation of their names should obviously be our first inclination, but there ought to be limits. Putting the emphasis on the final syllable of Sotomayor is unnatural in English (which is why the president stopped doing it after the first time at his press conference), unlike my correspondent’s simple preference for a monophthong over a diphthong, and insisting on an unnatural pronunciation is something we shouldn’t be giving in to.

If we pronouce someone’s name as they pronounce it, we’re giving in to something?

Thank You, President Bush!

Republicans are funny!


From the inbox:

For the last eight years, President Bush has led our country with firm determination and a steady hand in the face of numerous challenges and crises. He restored honor and integrity to the White House and protected America from another terrorist attack.

As President and Mrs. Bush prepare to leave Washington in a few weeks to return to Texas, I know I speak for Republicans and grassroots leaders across America when I say we are all grateful for their tremendous service to our country. To show our appreciation for our Commander-in-Chief, the RNC is asking every Republican to sign an electronic card that will be presented to President Bush before he leaves office. It is the least each of us can do to show our gratitude to the leader of our country and our Party.

And if you can, Robert, I hope you will also consider giving a gift to keep our Party strong and moving forward. Your secure online contribution of $1,000, $500, $100, $50 or $25 will go a long way toward helping the RNC provide the support our Republican leaders need to fight the Democrats’ liberal agenda and prepare for the vital 2009-2010 elections.

I hope you will add your name to the RNC’s Thank You card to President Bush and Laura Bush today. And thank you for your continued support of our Party and our cause.

Best Wishes,

Robert M. “Mike” Duncan
Chairman, Republican National Committee

P.S. Robert, in order for your name to be included on the RNC’s Thank you e-card to President and Mrs. Bush, you must reply to this e-mail by January 15th. Please click here to sign the President’s Thank You card and to make a secure online gift to help strengthen our Party for the battles ahead. Thank you.

Umm, I don’t know where to start. Apparently, in the minds of Republicans, “restoring honor and integrity to the White House” means being a corrupt bastard who is admirable because he allegedly stopped drinking at 40 and who can’t admit that he has ever been wrong about anything.

As far as we know, there have been no blow jobs in Bush’s Oval Office under Bush, but the collapse of confidence in our government nationally and internationally seem to mean that they have restored honor and dignity to the White House. And waging pre-emptive wars and enacting policies that have cause our economy to collapse have also helped in that arena? Ugh!

And he prevented another terrorist attack on the country? Well, that’s nice, considering that 9/11 happened 8 months into Bush’s first term after there were clear warnings that Al Quada planned to attack us. I guess not being attacked again is some sort of prize. But these GOP clowns seem to be OK with 5,000 American deaths in an unnecessary war.

Please join me in signing the GOP’s Thank You card to George W. and Laura Bush.

Supreme Court Upholds IN Voter ID Law

From the Indy Star:

The Supreme Court, in a fractured decision, upheld an Indiana law today that requires voters show a photo ID issued by the federal or state government.

“States should have the ability to implement appropriate and constitutional steps to protect their electoral systems from fraud,” Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter said in response. “We can move forward in Indiana with a process that provides constitutional protections to its citizens protecting their vote from potential fraudulent activity.”

It’s funny. When the Indiana voter ID law was first passed, I was one of the original affiants interviewed by the Indiana Civil Liberties Union opposing the new law.

As a case manager for homeless individuals, my thought was that the new law placed an unreasonable burden on homeless people whose ID had been lost or stolen.  If you’re homeless and need an ID, it’s likely that you have nothing to prove your identity. To get an ID, the first step is to produce a birth certificate, which you can’t usually get if you don’t have state ID. If you can produce something that identifies you, you’re often charged $20 or more to get the birth certificate, and $20 is something most homeless people don’t have, even if they are drug-free, since you can’t get a job or sell plasma without ID.

The new law made it very difficult for many Hoosier homeless people to vote, and I think that’s a crime, especially since there was no evidence that voter fraud was a problem in Indiana.

So yeah, I’m bothered, but not surprised by the SC ruling.

Photo of the Day

From Yahoo!:

Tibet activists hang up banners on the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, California, April 7, 2008. Three pro-Tibet activists scaled the cables of San Francisco’s famed Golden Gate Bridge and hung banners to protest the arrival of the Olympic torch in the city on Wednesday. (Kimberly White/Reuters)

The Chinese Olympic situation presents a dilemma. On the one hand, China has an abysmal human rights record and the international community especially should stand up to them about their recent crackdown in TIbet. But on the other hand, the IOC knew of China’s human rights problems when China was awarded the games. Boycotting the Olympics would do little more than punish the athletes who have worked their asses off to get where they are.

Certainly, the Soviets didn’t withdraw from Afghanistan as a result of our boycott of the Moscow Olympics in 1980 and a similar boycott wouldn’t move the Chinese on Tibet.

Would an international boycott (consisting of international leaders and athletes) of the opening and closing ceremonies be the answer by sending a strong signal to the Chinese government while still allowing the games to take place?